The Trump administration suddenly withdrew its federal policy change reducing funding for permanent supportive housing on Monday, Dec. 8, 2025. (Photo by Nadia Engenheiro, Half Street Group)

An hour before a scheduled court hearing on two federal lawsuits over recent changes to a key federal homelessness and housing funding program, the Trump administration withdrew the funding notice that prompted the litigation.

The move came as a surprise to the attorneys for plaintiffs who were initially scheduled to make their case for a temporary restraining order before Rhode Island Judge Mary S. McElroy. 

“It feels like intentional chaos,” McElroy said.

In a message to Continuum of Care networks, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced Monday afternoon that officials rescinded its Nov. 13 Notice of Funding Opportunity for federal fiscal 2025 grants to “make appropriate revisions.” The notice had set Jan. 14 as the deadline for applications for Continuum of Care funds, which address homelessness.

Rhode Island’s Continuum of Care gave the state’s homeless care a deadline of Dec. 12 to get their applications done to give to HUD, according to one of the lawsuits.

“We received notice first through our providers and [electronic filing], not through opposing counsel,” Zane Muller, assistant attorney general for the state of Washington, said during the 25-minute virtual hearing that began at 3:30 p.m.

HUD’s policy rescission too was news for McElroy, who called it a “haphazard approach to administrative law.” 

“There’s a process and procedure that’s laid out,” said McElroy, a first-term Trump appointee. “It’s not by tweets or by last-minute orders or last-minute withdrawals.”

Pardis Gheibi, a U.S. Department of Justice attorney representing HUD, told McElroy the notice was filed with the court as soon as it was published. She did not have the answer when McElroy wanted to know who at HUD made the decision to rescind the funding notice and when.

“We didn’t have the chance to confer with plaintiffs’ counsel — but the rescission happened this afternoon,” Gheibi said.

The Trump administration had planned to slash the amount of grant funds that can be spent on permanent housing — subsidized units that provide a stable residence for formerly homeless people, often those who have experienced mental illness or spent years on the streets — and instead focus on transitional housing.

Grant rules also would have eliminated funding for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely.

HUD wrote in its update that it still intends to make changes to the policy for awarding funds for addressing homelessness.

A coalition of states co-led by Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha filed suit over HUD’s latest Notice of Funding Opportunity on Nov. 25. On Dec. 1, a group of cities and nonprofits led by the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Low Income Housing Coalition filed a separate 85-page lawsuit.

Both complaints had similar requests for the court to declare the new conditions unlawful and reinstate language from prior funding notices, which is why McElroy opted to combine them into one hearing.

But with the funding notice now withdrawn, Gheibi argued there was no need for immediate relief.

Kristin Bateman, an attorney representing local communities and nonprofits and a senior counsel with Democracy Forward, argued court action is still needed. She said HUD’s rescission still leaves a critical funding gap for homeless services starting early next year since most federal fiscal 2024 grants start to expire in January.

“Those gaps in funding mean that they will not have the money to continue supporting the permanent housing that they fund for people to live in,” Bateman said. “People are going to be displaced, put back into homelessness in the middle of winter and face all the harms that come with that.”

McElroy scheduled the next hearing for 10 a.m. Friday, Dec. 19. She also tasked HUD with producing the administrative record on the grant funding policy, ideally within a week — though Gheibi had asked if it could wait until after the holidays.

McElroy said if the administration could work quickly to rescind the funding notice, they can work quickly to give the court the documents she requested.

“People can work overtime if they need to,” McElroy said. “I do, they do, I’m sure you do.”

President Donald Trump participates in a roundtable discussion with farmers and lawmakers in the Cabinet Room of the White House on Dec. 8, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Left is Cordt Holub of Dysart, Iowa, and right is Meryl Kennedy of Monroe, Louisiana.(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The federal government will provide $12 billion to U.S. farmers who have been hurt by “unfair market disruption,” President Donald Trump said at a White House roundtable event Monday.

Trump said repeatedly the funding was available thanks to tariff revenues, framing his aggressive trade policy as a boon to farmers rather than a drag on their global market share as critics of the policy suggest. 

“I’m delighted to announce this afternoon that the United States will be taking a small portion of the hundreds of billions of dollars we receive in tariffs…  and we’re going to be giving and providing it to the farmers in economic assistance,” Trump said.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, though, told reporters following the event that the money came from the department’s Commodity Credit Corporation, which is funded through regular appropriations from Congress, according to a White House pool report.

The money, which the administration officials described as “bridge payments,” would be in farmers’ hands by the end of February, Rollins said. 

While not officially marketed as a part of a series of Trump events spotlighting affordability issues, the president said several times he was addressing an affordability crisis he “inherited” from President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

“The Democrats cause the affordability problem,” Trump said. “And we’re the ones that are fixing it.” 

The bulk of the funding, $11 billion, would go to row crop farmers who grow barley, chickpeas, corn, cotton, lentils, oats, peanuts, peas, rice, sorghum, soybeans, wheat, canola, crambe, flax, mustard, rapeseed, safflower, sesame and sunflower, according to a USDA statement. The department was planning to reserve $1 billion for unnamed specialty crops, Rollins said.

Payments to arrive before GOP law kicks in

Trump, Rollins and other Cabinet-level officials said the payments were to be used as a “bridge” before policies enacted in Republicans’ massive spending and tax cuts law this year are implemented.

“This bridge is absolutely necessary based on where we are right now,” Rollins said.

They blamed the Biden administration for a more negative outlook for farmers. Biden failed to close trade deals and a focus on environmental policy led to increased costs for the agriculture industry, they said.

The package limits payments to $155,000 per recipient, USDA Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation Richard Fordyce told reporters on a conference call late Monday afternoon.

Iowa farmer Cordt Holub spoke at the White House event, where he thanked Trump for the package.

“I want to say thank you for this bridge payment,” he said. “It’s Christmas early for farmers.”

Louisiana rice farmer Meryl Kennedy said the industry was struggling, but thanked Trump for the aid funding and changes to reference prices in the Republican megabill. 

“Our farmers can feed this nation and many nations abroad, but we need fair trade, not free trade,” she said. 

Tariff impact ignored

But they did not mention the effects of tariffs, which critics of the president have said are responsible for diminishing agricultural exports and hurting farmers’ bottom lines.

House Agriculture Committee ranking Democrat Angie Craig of Minnesota said in a statement the package “picks winners and losers in the farm economy,” and would not provide certainty to farmers or reduce high operational costs.

“It will not bring U.S. agricultural exports back to pre-trade war levels,” she said. “It also ignores (the) fact that the president’s tariffs are responsible for the immense financial strain felt not just by America’s farmers, but also working people, manufacturers, retailers and small businesses. All Americans are tired of the affordability crisis created by this administration and congressional Republicans. We will be right back here a year from now unless the administration changes its policies.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, also slammed the program.

“The reason farmers need relief at all is largely because Donald Trump betrayed them and decimated their businesses with his disastrous tariffs,” Schumer said in a floor speech Monday. “Now, Donald Trump is patting himself on the back, acting like a hero to farmers while using taxpayer dollars to clean up the mess he created. It’s textbook Donald Trump incompetence.”

Another round?

Asked by a reporter during the roundtable if he would be open to another round of relief for farmers, Trump said it would depend on how international trade develops and said farmers would not want further aid.

“It depends on where we go,” he said. “China is buying a lot. Other countries are buying a lot. And you know, the interesting thing about the farmers, they don’t want aid. They want to just have a level playing field.”

He later indicated it would be unnecessary.

“We’re going to make the farmers so strong — and I’m not even talking about financially, because they just want to be able to produce what they can produce,” he said. “We’re going to make them so strong that it will be, indeed, a golden age for farmers.”

Rollins told reporters following the event that Trump was “open to more.”

Nurse practitioner Carol Biocic treats a Marine Corps veteran at a podiatry clinic for veterans in 2023 in Chicago. New professional student loan caps might make it more difficult for people to pursue advanced nursing degrees. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Zoe Clarke became a hospital registered nurse two and a half years ago, following in the footsteps of her mother and grandmother.

Clarke, an ICU nurse in Asheville, North Carolina, wants to get her master’s degree to become a nurse practitioner or a certified registered nurse anesthetist — occupations in high demand — and eventually work toward a doctoral degree.

But new borrowing limits on federal student loans may hinder her from reaching that goal.

A provision in the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the tax and spending law enacted this summer, overhauls the federal student loan program for graduate students in an effort to simplify the loan process and discourage colleges from raising tuition.

To comply with the new law, the U.S. Department of Education recently issued a draft rule that would impose limits on how much graduate students can borrow — up to $20,500 per year and $100,000 in total for most students, but up to $50,000 a year and $200,000 in total for students in a new “professional” category. The category includes people studying to be medical doctors, dentists, veterinarians, pharmacists and lawyers.

Students pursuing advanced nursing degrees, however, are not included in the professional category.

Advanced practice nurses, hospital associations and other health groups say the rule will make it unaffordable for many nurses to advance their careers — disproportionately affecting communities, especially rural ones, that rely on them amid physician shortages.

Advanced nurses can provide primary care, deliver babies as nurse midwives and anesthetize surgery patients where there aren’t enough physicians to go around. They can also write some prescriptions. Advanced practice nurses also serve as college faculty in community colleges and nursing schools.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the nation will employ an additional 134,000 nurse practitioners, nurse midwives and nurse anesthetists in the next decade, 35% more than there are now. In high demand, nurse practitioners are one of the fastest-growing occupations in the nation, the bureau says.

“We depend heavily on nurse practitioners,” said Sandy Reding, a president of the California Nurses Association and vice president of National Nurses United. “But if they don’t have access to getting further education, we’re not going to see additional nurse practitioners come into the field.”

Tuition, combined with living expenses, can far exceed $50,000 a year for many post-bachelor’s nursing programs.

“Potentially, this could devastate a whole generation of nurses getting their advanced practice degrees,” Clarke said.

Some education advocates fear that losing a pipeline of advanced nursing practitioners to serve as college faculty also could lead to fewer registered and advanced nurses and other caregivers with two- and four-year degrees, because there would be fewer people to teach them.

Many advanced-degree nursing faculty are retiring. Nursing schools reported more than 2,100 full-time faculty vacancies in 2022, according to the American Nurses Association — leading to roughly 80,000 students being turned away.

States are already grappling with workforce shortfalls caused by exhausting work conditions that have led many nurses to burn out and leave the field, or leave bedside care to teach, nurses told Stateline.

In response to an uproar from nursing associations and others in health care, the Department of Education released a rebuttal last week defending its proposal, saying it is not a “value judgement about the importance of programs.”

It also said it may make changes in response to public comments. The new limits would take effect July 1, 2026.

Rural and underserved communities

Advanced practice registered nurses, known as APRNs, fill gaps in rural communities where there aren’t enough clinicians. For example, nurses needed for surgeries — nurse anesthetists, or CRNAs — make up 80% of anesthesia providers in rural counties. About a fifth of APRNs nationwide worked in rural areas in 2022, according to one survey of more than 18,800 APRNs.

“The nurse practitioners, APRNs, are a needed lifeline to help fill those gaps,” said Heidi Lucas, executive director of the Missouri Rural Health Association and former director of the state’s nurses association. “Putting barriers in the way to keep [nurses] from getting degrees — that’s just going to exacerbate the problems that we already have.”

She said Missouri will be short about 2,000 physicians next year.

The new rule cutting options for federal student loans would only worsen staffing shortages amid tenuous rural hospital budgets, said state-level observers. Hospitals already are grappling with millions of dollars in looming Medicaid cuts over the next 10 years, said Rich Rasmussen, president of the Oklahoma Hospital Association.

Nurse practitioners often serve as primary care providers, writing prescriptions and managing patient care. About 80% of them see Medicaid and Medicare patients, according to the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, citing federal data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The proposal to deny advanced practice nurse practitioners the more generous loan options ignores the nation’s needs, said nurse practitioner Valerie Fuller, president of the association.

“At a time when America needs more health care providers, we can’t afford to put more obstacles in place for nurse practitioner students who want to go on and further their education and take care of the patients that need care,” said Fuller, former president of the Maine Nurse Practitioner Association. “We know it’s going to harm our workforce.”

‘Clipping the wings’

Rasmussen, of the Oklahoma Hospital Association, said he is concerned about the effect the rule will have on the pipeline for certified nurse midwives and the state’s already dwindling rural maternal health care options.

“We are clipping the wings of rural [obstetrics] to be able to blossom in our state if we’re going to put these types of restrictions on the borrowing capability of nurses who want to pursue obstetrical services in nursing as well,” he said. He added that the rules will force nurses to seek private sector loans — which don’t qualify for federal loan forgiveness programs that encourage clinicians to come work in rural areas.

Teshieka Curtis-Pugh, executive director of the South Carolina Nurses Association, is also concerned about nurse midwives. South Carolina is expected to see a shortage of 3,200 physicians by 2030.

“We also live in a state that has very poor maternal outcomes, especially for women of color. So think about, how does that impact them?” she said. “That means we don’t get the certified nurse midwives who are masters prepared, some of them are doctorally prepared, who are able to fill that gap for birth in that area.”

Diversity and opportunity for students from marginalized groups could also take a hit, said Curtis-Pugh, a registered nurse with a master’s of science in nursing. And for those going back to school while juggling parenting, federal loan dollars can help beyond tuition, she noted.

“They help that mom be able to supplement child care for their child, so that they can have child care while they go to school,” she said. “There’s tuition, there’s books, there’s keeping the lights on. They’re feeding the family they’re getting to and from.”

The exclusion from the higher, “professional” category of student loan options is especially galling after nurses’ work during the COVID-19 pandemic, said Reding, of National Nurses United.

“We were all heroes in 2020. Now, what are we?” Reding asked. “It’s a slap in the face to the nurses that go to work every day doing our very best to care for our patients, even under very adverse conditions and even facing deadly viruses.”

Clarke, the registered nurse considering a post-bachelor’s degree, said nurses’ pandemic-era devotion influenced her own career path.

“When I saw the nurses and the health care workers really working hard for their communities and sacrificing a lot, I was really inspired by that,” Clarke said. “And that’s why I went to school.”

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building on Nov. 25, 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Education Department is bringing back hundreds of employees in its Office for Civil Rights who were placed on paid administrative leave earlier this year, according to a Dec. 5 email to those employees obtained by States Newsroom. 

The effort came as the Office for Civil Rights, or OCR — which is tasked with investigating civil rights complaints from students and families — has seen a growth in its massive backlog of those complaints. 

A spokesperson for the department confirmed the effort and said the staffers would resume work starting Dec. 15.

Dismantling of department

More than 200 OCR employees targeted as part of a larger Reduction in Force, or RIF, effort at the Education Department in March were placed on administrative leave amid legal challenges against President Donald Trump’s administration.

Since taking office in January, Trump has sought to dismantle the 46-year-old agency in his quest to move education “back to the states.” He tapped Education Secretary Linda McMahon to fulfill that mission. 

“The Department will continue to appeal the persistent and unceasing litigation disputes concerning the Reductions in Force, but in the meantime, it will utilize all employees currently being compensated by American taxpayers,” Julie Hartman, a spokesperson for the department, said in a statement shared with States Newsroom.

In the email to employees, the department said “it is important to refocus OCR’s work and utilize all OCR staff to prioritize OCR’s existing complaint caseload.” 

“In order for OCR to pursue its mission with all available resources, all those individuals currently being compensated by the Department need to meet their employee performance expectations and contribute to the enforcement of existing civil rights complaints,” the email notes.

The agency did not respond to States Newsroom’s separate requests to confirm the text of the email. It is unclear how many of the more than 200 will return, or if some have taken other jobs.

Union says millions of dollars wasted

Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents Education Department workers, said that “for more than nine months, hundreds of employees at the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) have been sidelined from the critical work of protecting our nation’s most vulnerable students and families.”

“Instead of following court orders and federal law, the Trump Administration chose to keep these civil rights professionals on paid administrative leave — a decision that has already wasted more than $40 million in taxpayer funds — rather than letting them do their jobs,” she said. 

Gittleman pointed to “severe” consequences, noting that “by blocking OCR staff from doing their jobs, Department leadership allowed a massive backlog of civil rights complaints to grow, and now expects these same employees to clean up a crisis entirely of the Department’s own making.” 

Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter participates in a privacy roundtable at CES 2020 at the Las Vegas Convention Center on Jan. 7, 2020 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by David Becker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court appeared ready to expand presidential power after hearing a case Monday on whether President Donald Trump can hire and fire members of independent federal agencies without cause.

The high court’s decision, expected by the end of the term in late June, could heighten presidential influence over agencies created by Congress that oversee monetary policy, nuclear safety, consumer advocacy and trade, among other major policy areas.

The court’s conservative supermajority speculated that Congress could wield more and more power over the executive branch regarding how independent multimember agencies are structured, for example establishing term limits for commissioners.

Oral arguments centered on a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent protecting the five-member panel atop the Federal Trade Commission from being fired for reasons other than “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.” 

The 1935 decision, referred to by its short title Humphrey’s executor, upheld the Federal Trade Commission Act’s removal protection provision after President Franklin D. Roosevelt fired FTC Commissioner William Humphrey before his seven-year term ended. He died shortly after, and his executor sued and won.

Slaughter fired in March

Monday’s case stems from Trump’s March firing of Rebecca Slaughter, an FTC commissioner since 2018, when she was named during Trump’s first term. President Joe Biden reappointed her and the Senate unanimously confirmed her for a second term in 2023.

Trump fired Slaughter on March 28 in an email that said her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my administration’s priorities.” Slaughter sued and won in federal district court and at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued to the justices Monday that Congress is “shaving away from the president’s control.”

The conservative justices homed in on Sauer’s argument.

In an exchange between Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Slaughter’s counsel, Amit Agarwal, Barrett said, “If we decide this case in your favor, we don’t know what a Congress in 15 or 20 or 30 years might do.”

Agarwal responded, “We haven’t seen this problem materializing at all.”

“The real world danger that is imminent right now, that we know will happen, and that is that if petitioners get their way, everything is on the chopping block,” he said.

A few minutes later, Justice Brett Kavanaugh challenged Agarwal’s argument that if the president wants a structural change to an independent agency, he or she can work with Congress.

“You’ve mentioned many times, you can just go to Congress to fix this. Well, once the power is taken away from the president, it’s very hard to get it back in the legislative process,” Kavanaugh said.

Agarwal disagreed and argued that “exactly the opposite” has happened, in that Congress has ceded power to the executive branch over time.

Debate over stability in agencies

Kavanaugh also took issue with Agarwal’s argument that statutory guardrails baked into laws that govern independent agencies provide stability across administrations.

Agarwal pressed back, calling it “a problem on steroids” if independent agencies were completely shaken up every time a presidential administration changes and staggered terms were ignored.

“The whole point of this structure is to guarantee a modicum of stability that private, regulated entities can depend upon, and that is jeopardized by at-will presidential removal,” Agarwal said.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of three liberal justices, said the administration’s appeal to justices could “open the door for the president to come in, each new president, and clean house in terms of all of the individuals who are running that agency.”

“Notwithstanding their expertise and knowledge and experience and the things that they are doing to promote the mission of the agency,” Jackson said. “And presumably the president could install whoever he wanted in those positions.”

Argawal responded: “Think about it in terms of commissions like the Federal Elections Commission. Would anyone want those sensitive election-related determinations to be under the plenary control of a political actor? 

“Think about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Can’t Congress and the president come together and say those types of technical determinations that could have massive implications for the public in all kinds of ways, should be made by a multimember body of experts?” he continued.

But during his rebuttal, Sauer warned of a scenario where “Congress could reconstruct virtually the entire executive branch outside the president’s control.”

Fed firing up next

The arguments lasted two-and-a-half hours and could be a preview of oral arguments in January that will center on Trump’s firing of Federal Reserve Board governor Lisa Cook.

The seven-member board governing the central bank sets U.S. policy, including interest rates. Trump has slammed Federal Reserve leadership for months for not lowering interest rates at a faster pace.

The case comes on the heels of a federal appeals court decision Friday that Trump “permissibly removed” members earlier this year from the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The FTC was established in 1914 under President Woodrow Wilson to protect consumers from unfair business practices.

Sauer, formerly the Missouri solicitor general, was previously the president’s own defense lawyer and argued on Trump’s behalf before the Supreme Court last year on the question of presidential immunity. 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development headquarters. (Photo by HUD Office of Public Affairs)

Update: On Monday, Dec. 8, the federal government withdrew the funding notice cutting Continuum of Care funds.

A proposed budget from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that cuts funds which have meant the difference between shelter and homelessness for about 170,000 people nationwide has left communities scrambling. In Wisconsin, the cuts are projected to cause the loss of permanent housing for 2,379 people according to a report by the National Alliance to End Homelessness. The loss of funds would hit early in the new year, leaving local governments to absorb the fallout in the middle of winter. 

Korey Lundin, senior staff attorney at the National Housing Law Project and former staff attorney with Legal Action of Wisconsin, told the Wisconsin Examiner that the grants that HUD cut —  known as Continuum of Care (CoC) funds — “help thousands of people. That includes folks who have been recently unhoused.” In Wisconsin, 52% of permanent housing funding is covered by the CoC program. 

The people the CoC program serves, Ludin said, include “families, children, seniors, veterans, those who are survivors of domestic violence,” and others who are “not just the stereotypical image that people get when they think of a homeless person.”

In Milwaukee County, over $12 million in CoC funds covers direct rent payments to help provide housing for vulnerable county residents. The investments help support thousands of people across more than 20 housing programs. 

CoC funding in Milwaukee County supports housing for:

• over 770 children;
• 154 young adults between 18 and 24 years old, 
• 560 working-age residents from 25 to 44 years old, 
• 590 people between the ages of 45 to 64,
• 826 people with no income at all, 
• 347 who earn only $500-$1000 a month,
• 1,049 people diagnosed with mental health disorders,
• 321 people with physical disabilities,
• 123 with co-occurring substance use disorders,
• 549 people who’ve remained in housing for over five years,
• and 610 people who’ve maintained housing for 1 to 2 years. 

HUD has also proposed capping permanent housing support at 30%. In Milwaukee County 89% of CoC funds are dedicated to permanent housing beds. The picture isn’t much different for Dane County (where 78% of CoC funding goes to permanent beds), or Racine County (where 80% of CoC funding supports permanent beds). 

HUD announced the cuts saying they will help fulfill President Donald Trump’s “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets” executive order. HUD claimed that cutting support for permanent housing beds across the country will restore “accountability to homelessness programs” while promoting “self-sufficiency among vulnerable Americans.” 

The Trump administration has been criticized for policies that essentially criminalize homelessness, jailing and displacing unhoused people in an effort to beautify cities. Lundin sees the HUD cuts as part of that effort. He told the Wisconsin Examiner, “They want to round up and warehouse the unhoused. They want to incarcerate the unhoused. The solutions they’re talking about are solutions that exacerbate homelessness.”

HUD Secretary Scott Turner has said that restricting and cutting permanent bed funding is “ending the status quo that perpetuated homelessness through a self-sustaining slush fund.” In a press release announcing the cuts, HUD criticized “the failed ‘Housing First’ ideology, which encourages dependence on endless government handouts while neglecting to address the root causes of homelessness, including illicit drugs and mental illnesses.”

Housing First is an approach to addressing homelessness that prioritizes placing individuals in permanent and stable housing. One 2022 study — which noted that chronic homelessness in the U.S. costs up to $3.4 billion — found that the economic benefits of implementing Housing First programs outweigh the costs of the programs. In 2023, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs published a research brief highlighting that “strong evidence exists that the Housing First model leads to quicker exits from homelessness and greater housing stability over time compared with treatment as usual.” It also stated that studies on the Housing First Model — four of which were reviewed to compile the research brief — show that the model “results in greater improvements in housing outcomes for homeless adult populations in North America.” 

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who credits the county’s Housing First approach for a sharp reduction in homelessness, told the Examiner, “I am deeply concerned about the Trump administration’s move to slash permanent housing funding. This decision will destabilize housing for people across the country and it threatens the real progress we have made in Milwaukee County through our Housing First program.” Crowley noted that Milwaukee County has been recognized for having the lowest number of unsheltered homeless residents count per capita in the country, “and we are looked at as a national leader in this space. As someone who knows what housing insecurity feels like, I will pull every lever I can to protect working families and expand access to permanent housing so we can keep our state moving forward.” 

Especially in the winter, the HUD cuts could have troubling consequences. “We don’t have any state protection that prohibits people from being evicted in winter,” said Lundin, who lives in Wisconsin. “If this goes through it would be happening in the worst time here in Wisconsin in the middle of the winter.” 

Lawsuits are already being filed by cities, states and nonprofits. Lundin also said that Congress could intervene by appropriating funding for the HUD programs the administration plans to cut in 2026. In a statement to the Examiner, U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee) called CoC funding and homeless programs “vital to many organizations in Wisconsin and in Milwaukee who help the unhoused and keep people housed.” 

Moore said in the statement, “as per usual with this administration, it is the most vulnerable, like domestic violence survivors and LGBTQ youth, who would be hit the hardest. The Trump Administration’s proposal disregards Congress’s intent and would be catastrophic, putting 170,000 Americans at risk of homelessness. I am pleased to have joined my colleagues on several letters opposing these changes. House and Senate Members on both sides of the aisle have also pushed back because they recognize what it would do: Move us backward in the fight to end homelessness.”

Advocates are urging members of Congress to support a final HUD spending bill that increases funding for housing vouchers and protects CoC funds for permanent housing. The House and Senate version of a bill to fund HUD’s affordable housing, community development, and homelessness services programs differ by billions of dollars as the two chambers work to hammer out a year-end spending deal. 

A homeless man sits in his tent in Washington, D.C., this summer. New rules from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will sharply restrict how $3 billion in homelessness aid will be spent, allowing no more than 30% of federal grants to be used for permanent housing. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

As the housing shortage pushes more Americans into homelessness for the first time, the Trump administration wants to focus federal housing aid on mental health treatment and enforcement against street homelessness, rather than on finding people permanent homes as quickly as possible.

The administration’s new plan to tie federal housing aid to work requirements and drug treatment could be a boon to states such as Alabama, Florida and Wyoming that already are pursuing that strategy. But for many other states — and nonprofit providers across the country — the rules represent a sudden pivot from past expectations. In California, the new federal funding priorities face a direct conflict with state law.

Under new rules announced last month, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will place new restrictions on $3 billion in homelessness aid, allowing no more than 30% of federal grants to be used for permanent housing. That approach, known as Housing First, prioritizes getting people into safe, stable housing ahead of other treatment and enforcement, and had been a key focus for the federal government’s Continuum of Care Program for homelessness.

Now, HUD’s new rules — a shift to Treatment First policies — could result in a major reprioritization of who gets funding and for what purpose. Backlash from many nonprofits and homelessness service providers across the country has been swift, and 20 states and Washington, D.C., have filed suit to stop the rules, arguing they violate federal law. Several cities and counties across the country also have joined a lawsuit against the department.

While service providers point to success stories from permanent supportive housing, the Trump administration points to rising homelessness — and a perception of violent crime — as a reason to shift funding away from the long-standing approach.

But Martha Are, CEO of the Homeless Services Network of Central Florida, said the Trump administration is putting the onus on  nonprofits and service providers to fix a homelessness crisis that is propelled by a lack of housing that people can afford.

“If homelessness numbers go up, some assume the homeless-response system doesn’t work. But the real driver is the housing market, not the interventions,” Are said. “HUD is penalizing communities for following the rules they set in previous years. I’ve never seen them say, ‘You complied with our guidance, and now you lose points for it.’”

Easy transition for some states

An analysis of publicly available federal data by the National Alliance to End Homelessness found that 88% of federal Continuum of Care dollars flow to permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing, the models with the strongest evidence of reducing chronic homelessness. The new HUD rules would force cuts large enough to cause roughly 170,000 people to lose that housing, according to the advocacy group’s projections.

But a handful of Continuum of Care programs already devote far less to permanent housing. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, that includes that includes certain county or state programs in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wyoming.

These programs operate closer to HUD’s new funding requirements and are unlikely to face major disruption. Some even may become more competitive for federal funding, especially in states where policymakers have already adopted enforcement-heavy approaches to homelessness.

Such states — including Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee and Texas — may be better positioned under HUD’s new grant-funding criteria, which prioritize jurisdictions that criminalize public camping, expand law enforcement involvement or restrict low-barrier shelters, which may have more flexible policies than traditional shelters.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s City of Grants Pass v. Johnson ruling in June 2024 allowing localities to ban outdoor camping even if there is no homeless shelter space available, roughly 150 cities in 32 states have passed or strengthened such ordinances.

The annual point-in-time count of people sleeping outside reported that homelessness reached an all-time high in 2024, the most recent data available from HUD. The count, taken during the last 10 days of January 2024, found that 771,480 people were experiencing homelessness, an 18% increase over the previous year and the largest one-year jump in the history of the count.

HUD told Stateline the administration is shifting its approach to emphasize “long-term self-sufficiency and recovery” rather than the number of housing units funded or filled.

The agency rejected advocates’ claims that the new rules will increase homelessness, arguing instead that “failed” Housing First policies have contributed to rising numbers. HUD said it hopes communities will convert many permanent supportive housing programs into transitional housing with stronger requirements around addiction and mental-health services.

Skepticism about Housing First

The impact of these cuts won’t be evenly distributed.

Some areas with the deepest investments in the Housing First approach — including Cleveland, Ohio; Los Angeles; and New York City — stand to lose thousands of units that currently serve older adults, those leaving domestic violence situations, people with disabilities, veterans and families.

Those in favor of HUD’s funding shift argue that long-standing as it may be, Housing First has failed to reduce homelessness.

HUD’s annual counts show national homelessness rising for most of the past decade, and the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service notes that while Housing First stabilizes individuals, it has not reduced the number of people experiencing homelessness.

A 2021 Harvard University study found that while most people in permanent supportive housing remained housed in the first year, retention dropped sharply over time — with only about 12% still housed after 10 years.

Conservative think tanks such as the Cicero Institute, American Enterprise Institute and the Manhattan Institute suggest that Housing First undervalues mental health and substance use treatment. They point to Oregon’s homelessness struggles after drug decriminalization as evidence that voluntary services alone cannot stabilize the most vulnerable residents.

They further argue that permanent housing grants crowd out shelter, detox and transitional programs, and that many nonprofits defending the model are financially invested in maintaining the status quo.

At a moment when tight housing markets are pushing record numbers of people into first-time homelessness, local providers, who stand to lose grants, warn that HUD’s policy reversal will function more like a mass eviction than a funding shift — sending tens of thousands of people back into shelters, onto waiting lists, or directly onto the streets.

Losing trust in the system

In Orlando, Florida, many residents are experiencing homelessness for the first time. Shelters are full and a recent law in Florida allows police to arrest people for sleeping outdoors.

Are, of the Homeless Services Network of Central Florida, said the proposed HUD changes would eliminate more than 500 permanent housing subsidies that her organization offers in the Orlando area alone.

For providers, these subsidies cover the rent for units where people already live. If HUD defunds them, tenants would lose support, landlords would stop receiving payments and people would be evicted unless local governments backfill the funds, she said. And most local governments can’t afford to, she added.

Central Florida has built a system that uses data to focus on high-need individuals and keep them housed — in long-term rental units paired with voluntary support services — at a lower cost than mandated hospitalizations or treatment, Are said. HUD’s abrupt policy reversal would unravel years of progress and leave communities with “no place to put people.”

“Our permanent supportive housing costs about one-twentieth of what inpatient institutional programs cost in this region, and the outcomes are far better,” she said.

Nashville, Tennessee, had expected stable homelessness funding until HUD overhauled the rules “out of [the] blue” and at a time when it would be hard for providers to plan for sudden changes, said Wally Dietz, legal director for the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County.

When Congress approved a two-year cycle for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, localities were told they wouldn’t have to reapply for money, he said. That changed this fall.

“Nashville was given 60 days, spanning Thanksgiving and Christmas, to rewrite and resubmit its entire homelessness funding application, which is something the city typically prepares for a full year,” Dietz said.

If the changes to Nashville’s funding go through, not only will people lose their housing, he said, but a 20-year infrastructure will crumble and the164 landlords who partnered with the city will lose faith once rent aid stops flowing.

“Once evicted, people will not reengage with the system, and trust will be impossible to rebuild,” Dietz said.

Nashville is among a handful of localities, including Boston, San Francisco and Tucson, Arizona, that filed a joint lawsuit Monday to block the rule changes, accusing HUD of bypassing Congress. The suit, whose plaintiffs also include the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Low Income Housing Coalition, was filed in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island.

“If the administration wants to overhaul homelessness policy, it has to go through Congress,” Dietz said. “That gives cities time to prepare, to testify, to budget. But we didn’t get that chance.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

Getty Images

As a practicing OB-GYN in Wisconsin, I see firsthand how many of my patients rely on contraception to protect their health, manage painful conditions, and plan their futures. When a woman sits across from me in the exam room, she’s not thinking about politics. She’s thinking about how to survive her work day without severe cramps, how to manage her bleeding so she can attend class without mishap, or how to avoid threatening her life with another high-risk pregnancy. 

These situations are only a few of the reasons why the news about abandoned U.S.–funded contraceptives overseas is so alarming. This action blatantly reflects the same disregard for women’s health that now shapes national policy. And that disregard lands directly on women’s bodies. 

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. government ordered the destruction of nearly $10 million worth of U.S.–funded contraceptives, based on the false claim that birth control is an “abortifacient.” This claim is absolutely nonsensical. Contraception doesn’t end a pregnancy — it prevents one. Unfortunately, ideology, and not medicine, guided that decision, leaving lifesaving, taxpayer‑funded medicine stalled in warehouses instead of reaching women who need it. 

The full picture is even more disturbing. Several days ago, a new report found that the Trump administration left 20 of 24 U.S.–funded contraceptive shipments to waste away in Belgian warehouses. These were fully paid-for, taxpayer-funded supplies — IUDs, implants, pills, and other reproductive health essentials — intended for women in 13 countries. This is simply appalling. 

And if you think that kind of extremism stops at the water’s edge, think again. 

Back home, I see the fallout of the same ideology driving national attacks on contraception and women. 

Already, there are over 300,000 women of reproductive age in Wisconsin in need of contraception, and attacks are making this gap even worse. 

And these gaps carry real health risks, because contraception does more than prevent pregnancy — it treats endometriosis, PCOS, severe bleeding and anemia, and it reduces the risk of reproductive cancers. 

Rural clinics that once offered contraception and family-planning visits have declined in number, a trend worsened by federal policy shifts that weaken the reproductive-health safety net and leave too many women without reliable nearby options for care.

And now, with health-insurance costs already skyrocketing for many families — and monthly bills set to jump even higher if those tax credits expire — the ACA’s no-cost contraception guarantee slips further out of reach. Road block after road block after road block. 

Fortunately, Wisconsin has leaders who understand the stakes. 

Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s leadership on the “Right to Contraception Act” reflects a truth every OB‑GYN knows: contraception saves lives. Contraception reduces maternal deaths, prevents unintended pregnancies, treats reproductive-health conditions, and empowers women to build stable lives. Baldwin fights to protect contraception — what Wisconsin women rely on every day — not because it’s politically convenient, but because she understands it’s a medical necessity. 

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan co-sponsored the “Saving Lives and Taxpayer Dollars Act” — legislation designed to stop exactly what we’re seeing in Belgium. The bill requires that U.S.–funded food and medical supplies – like the contraception sitting in Brussels at this moment – reach the people they were purchased for, instead of being left to rot or destroyed for ideological reasons. In Washington, where too many have decided contraception is a cultural wedge rather than essential health care, Pocan’s voice matters. 

The women I see in my exam room aren’t looking for a political fight. They’re looking for care that lets them stay healthy, stay safe, and stay in control of their lives — something contraception makes possible every day. 

Jeopardizing contraception — whether through wasteful negligence abroad or political interference here at home — is harmful, cruel and simply unjust. 

We in Wisconsin cannot afford to look the other way. We need leaders who will defend the right to contraception, not undermine it. 

The stakes are simple: either we protect access to basic health care, or we allow ideology to decide who gets care — and who doesn’t. 

For the women in my clinic — and for women everywhere — contraception is essential care that strengthens their health and safeguards their freedom.

U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Arizona, speaks to the media during a primary election-night party at El Casino Ballroom in South Tucson on July 15, 2025. Grijalva claims she was pepper-sprayed during an ICE raid in Tucson on Dec. 5, 2025, but the Department of Homeland Security denies it. (Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty Images)

Arizona’s U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijalva was involved in a clash with federal agents during a protest of immigration raids in west Tucson Friday, during which she claims she was hit with pepper spray. 

According to a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency partnered with the Internal Revenue Service to carry out as many as 16 warrants in southern Arizona in a “years-long investigation into immigration and tax violations.” In videos posted to social media by community advocates, several masked federal agents in tactical gear can be seen near the westside location of popular Mexican seafood and grill restaurant Taco Giro. 

The raids prompted a protest and federal agents deployed tear gas and pepper spray against the crowd. The Arizona Daily Star reported that multiple employees who live near the west Tucson restaurant were detained. At least one protester was among those taken into custody by federal agents. AZ Family reported that Taco Giro locations in north Tucson, Casa Grande and Vail were also targeted. ICE spokesman Fernando Burgos-Ortiz confirmed to the Arizona Mirror that multiple people were arrested, but didn’t clarify how many or confirm claims that agents had pepper-sprayed a sitting U.S. Congresswoman.

Tricia McLaughlin, the spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, dismissed Grijalva’s account. McLaughlin accused Grijalva of hindering the work of federal agents and appeared to question Grijalva’s claim that she was pepper-sprayed by highlighting her lack of visible physical reaction in the video. 

“If her claims were true, this would be a medical marvel,” McLaughlin wrote. “But they’re not true. She wasn’t pepper sprayed. She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement. In fact, 2 law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that (Grijalva) joined. Presenting one’s self as a ‘Member of Congress’ doesn’t give you the right to obstruct law enforcement.”

Tucson Sentinel reporter Paul Ingram, who was on-the-ground covering the ICE raid and protest, reported that federal agents shot pepper spray into his face and eye, even though he was clearly identified as a member of the press.

A video from Univision reporter Óscar Gómez shows federal agents shooting pepper spray directly into the faces of protesters, with Grijalva in close proximity. An agent is then seen coming after Gómez directly, covering his camera with pepper spray, even as Gómez appeared to be backing away.

The large-scale raid of several Taco Giros in Southern Arizona is the second time this year a restaurant chain was the subject of an investigation by Homeland Security Investigations, a division within ICE, that ensnared multiple employees who lack legal immigration status. 

In July, federal agents raided Colt Grill BBQ and Spirits locations in Northern Arizona. The operation was the culmination of a multi-year investigation into a money laundering and labor exploitation scheme. Along with the husband-and-wife owners of the Northern Arizona restaurants, and two undocumented immigrants who were involved in recruiting and exploiting other immigrant workers, several more undocumented employees were also arrested. 

In a video posted to her X account, Grijalva described as many as 40 agents gathered at the westside location she visited with her staff for lunch, and said that she was treated with hostility even after identifying herself as a member of Congress. 

“I was here, this is like the restaurant I come to literally once a week, and was sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others when I literally was not being aggressive,” she said. “I was asking for clarification which is my right as a member of Congress.” 

A video of the incident posted to Grijalva’s social media accounts shows a federal agent spraying several bursts of pepper spray directly at demonstrators in the street, close to where Grijalva is standing. Grijalva’s staffer jumps in front of her. Coughing can be heard offscreen. Later in the video, a pepper ball appears to explode inches from Grijalva’s feet as she walks away.

Grijalva, Arizona’s first Latina congresswoman, has been a fierce critic of immigration enforcement activity in her district. Earlier this week, she publicly condemned a Border Patrol raid of a humanitarian group’s migrant aid station in the desert on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, criticizing it as an example of President Donald Trump’s “cruel (and) unconstitutional” mass deportation agenda. 

 In a statement issued shortly after she said she was pepper-sprayed, Grijalva said her office was working to get more information on Friday’s immigration arrests.

“Our residents deserve to know whether these raids are targeting genuine public safety threats – or law-abiding neighbors who have called our communities home for decades,” she wrote. “ICE has become a lawless agency under this Administration – operating with no transparency, no accountability, and open disregard for basic due process.”

While Trump administration officials have time and again emphasized their intent to detain the “worst of the worst”, many of the immigrants that ICE has arrested during Trump’s second term have no criminal record. A June survey of people in immigration detainment facilities at the time found that nearly half, 47%, lacked any criminal history and fewer than 30% of them had been convicted of crimes.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, the state’s top legal officer, denounced the incident on social media. In a post on X, the Democrat, who has long criticized Trump’s immigration enforcement tactics, called the incident “unacceptable and outrageous.”

“Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions,” Mayes wrote. “Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression.”

Grijalva voiced concern for how federal officials interact with people who don’t have her authority, in light of how she was mistreated on Friday.

“While I am fine, if that is the way they treat me, how are they treating other community members who do not have the same privileges and protections that I do?” she questioned, in her written statement. 

***UPDATE: This story has been updated with eyewitness reporting from the Tucson Sentinel and Univision. 

Wisconsin State Capitol (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

Gov. Tony Evers vetoed nine bills Friday including a Republican bill that would have barred local and state funds from being used for immigrants without legal status.

Wisconsin already doesn’t allow immigrants without legal status to access BadgerCare, which Evers noted in his veto message. Republicans lawmakers acknowledged that fact as they advocated for AB 308, saying the bill was intended to block future use of health care benefits by immigrants. The bill would have prohibited state, county, village, long-term care district and federal funds from being used to subsidize, reimburse or provide compensation for any health care services for a person not lawfully in the U.S.

“As this bill’s Republican co-author in the Wisconsin State Assembly plainly stated in the public hearing on this proposal, ‘Wisconsin currently doesn’t allow undocumented immigrants to enroll in BadgerCare,’” Evers wrote in his veto message. 

“I object to Republican lawmakers passing legislation they acknowledge is unnecessary to prevent problems they admit do not exist, all for the sake of trying to push polarizing political rhetoric,” Evers added. 

Evers said the bill was “more about being inflammatory, stoking fear, and sowing division than it was about accomplishing any significant policy outcome or being prudent stewards of taxpayer dollars.” 

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, one of two Republican candidates for governor, criticized the veto in a statement, saying Evers was putting the interests of “illegal aliens” ahead of Wisconsin taxpayers and sought to tie Evers’ action to next year’s high-profile gubernatorial election. Evers is not running for reelection, and there is a crowded Democratic field that is still taking shape.

“If Democrats take the governor’s office in 2026, you can count on them to hand out driver’s licenses, in-state tuition and taxpayer-funded health care to illegal aliens. I will not let that happen,” Tiffany said.

No new cigar bars

Evers also vetoed a bill that would have allowed for more tobacco bars in Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin first enacted its smoke-free air law in 2010 — prohibiting smoking cigars, cigarettes, pipes and other products in public spaces. The law included an exclusion for cigar bars that were in existence before June 4, 2009.

AB 211 would have allowed for more exemptions for tobacco bars if they came into existence on or after June 4, 2009 provided that they allowed only the smoking of cigars and pipes and were not part of a retail food establishment.

Evers, a former smoker and an esophageal cancer survivor, said he objected due to the harm that the bill could have on Wisconsinites public health.

“Secondhand smoke, a known carcinogen, causes serious health problems and is responsible for thousands of deaths on an annual basis,” Evers stated. He said the state’s smoke-free air law was “a critically important step forward for keeping kids, families, and communities healthier and safer, improving public health and, most importantly, saving thousands of lives… I cannot in good conscience reverse course on that important step for public health, safety, and well-being by restoring indoor smoking in certain public spaces.”

Bill to ban guaranteed income

Evers also vetoed AB 165, which would have banned local governments from using tax money to create guaranteed income programs without a work or training requirement. 

Evers wrote in his veto message that he objects to lawmakers’ “continued efforts to arbitrarily restrict and preempt local governments across our state.” He said they should instead focus on finding ways to support local communities and ensure they have the resources they need to “meet basic and unique needs alike.”

Building code delay

Evers vetoed AB 450, which would have put off the effective date of Wisconsin’s updated commercial building code until April 1, 2026, saying he objected to “further unnecessary delay in implementing new building standards that will benefit Wisconsin communities.” 

The new building codes were originally blocked by lawmakers on the Joint Committee on the Review of Administrative Rules for years, but they were reinstated this year by the the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) after a state Supreme Court decision. Justices ruled in July that state laws allowing the Legislature to block executive branch administrative rules indefinitely were unconstitutional.

The current effective date for the building codes is Nov. 1, 2025.

Republican lawmakers claimed the delay to next year was needed to provide clarity to builders who had been planning projects under the previous code. 

Evers wrote in his veto message that the bill would do the opposite. 

“This bill would not only create confusion for developers with current building projects under review but would also further delay the implementation of new safety and energy efficiency standards that have been already widely adopted,” Evers said. “The department has and will continue to work with building professionals throughout the state to ensure proper understanding and compliance with the new building commercial code.” 

Education bills rejected

A handful of Republican education-related bills were rejected by Evers. 

Currently, teacher preparation programs are required to have a full semester of student teaching during the school year. SB 424 would have allowed for programs to use student teaching during a summer session as an alternative to a full school-year semester.

Lawmakers had said the bill would help with recruitment by allowing for more flexibility to students seeking to become teachers. However, Evers said that the bill would potentially reduce the rigor of the current training that students are required to have, especially given that summer sessions can be shorter than a typical school term and may not allow students to experience the same opportunities available during the school year such as parent-teacher conferences.

“Reducing training, qualifications, experience, and work ages are not real solutions for solving Wisconsin’s generational workforce shortages,” Evers said in his veto message. “Wisconsin’s challenges recruiting, training, and retaining exceptional educators will not be aided by making education professionals less trained, less qualified, and less experienced — nor will our kids.”

Evers also vetoed AB 166, which would have required UW system institutions, technical colleges and private nonprofit colleges to report cost and student outcome data and required the information be provided to high school juniors and seniors in academic and career planning services. 

Evers said in his veto message that he didn’t want to burden the state’s higher education institutions with more administrative requirements, especially without “necessary resources.” He noted that the UW system says that the requirements in the bill “overlap substantially” with existing information that is already available. 

The University of Wisconsin system keeps a public dashboard with some of the information that the bill would have required, including for financial aid, retention and graduation, and time and credits to degree.

Evers also vetoed SB 10, which would have mandated that Wisconsin public school districts provide military recruiters with access to common areas in high schools and access during the school day and during school-sanctioned events. He said that while he supports the troops, he doesn’t support lawmakers’ attempts to “usurp” local control of decisions on when and where military recruiters are given access to schools. 

Bill that would have eliminated requirement for Elections Commission appeal

Voters currently can file a complaint to the Wisconsin Election Commission if they allege an election official serving the voter’s jurisdiction has failed to comply with certain election laws or has abused his or her discretion with respect to the administration of such election laws. A voter who doesn’t agree with a WEC decision can appeal to a court, though currently courts are only allowed to take up an appeal if voters have suffered an injury to a legally recognized interest as a result. That requirement was established in a 2025 state Supreme Court decision.

SB 270 would have eliminated that requirement, and Evers said he objected because it “would open the floodgates to frivolous lawsuits that not only burden our courts, but our election systems as well.” 

Penalties for those who falsely claim a service animal

AB 366, which would have allowed housing providers to require documentation for service animals and created penalties for misrepresentation of an animal. Evers said he objects to “the creation of unnecessary barriers for individuals with legitimate disability-related needs.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

The U.S. Supreme Court said Friday justices will hear a case to decide if President Donald Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship is constitutional.

The court agreed to hear a case, before it is decided in a lower court, that deals with the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States. The amendment’s birthright citizenship clause has been used to give citizenship to the children of immigrants in the country without legal authorization or on a temporary basis.

While a schedule for arguments has not yet been released by the court, it’s likely the case would be heard sometime in early 2026.

The Trump administration argued in its petition to the court that the amendment, which was adopted in 1868, was meant to apply to newly freed slaves. It was not meant to provide citizenship to the children of immigrants without legal status, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.

“Long after the Clause’s adoption, the mistaken view that birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences,” Sauer wrote in the September petition.

The petition also sought Supreme Court review of a related challenge to the order by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon. Friday’s court order did not grant a hearing on that case.

Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20 seeking to redefine the birthright citizenship clause to exclude the children of immigrants in the country without legal authority or only temporarily. Democratic-led states and advocacy groups swiftly sued.

Courts have largely blocked enforcement of the order, although the Supreme Court in June allowed it to go into effect in the states that had not sued to preserve the right.

In a Friday afternoon statement, the American Civil Liberties Union, a leading civil rights group, noted that several federal judges had blocked enforcement and predicted the Supreme Court would preserve birthright citizenship.

“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, ACLU’s national legal director, said. “For over 150 years, it has been the law and our national tradition that everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen from birth. The federal courts have unanimously held that President Trump’s executive order is contrary to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision from 1898, and a law enacted by Congress. We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”

Members of a key CDC advisory committee, known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, met in Atlanta on Dec. 4. Maya Homan/Georgia Recorder

ATLANTA — A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committee voted to eliminate a recommendation that all newborn babies receive a vaccine against hepatitis B, ending a policy that has been in place since 1991 to protect Americans against an incurable liver disease that can lead to cirrhosis, cancer and liver failure. 

The current three-dose series for hepatitis B includes one vaccine administered to infants within 24 hours of birth, and subsequent booster shots given one month and six months after the initial dose. The universal vaccination policy is credited with a 99% drop in serious infections among American children between 1990 and 2019.

In its updated guidelines, the agency will continue to recommend that babies born to mothers who test positive for hepatitis B receive a vaccine at birth. However, in all other cases, the decision will be left to “individual-based decision-making,” a change that experts say will lead to an increase in chronic hepatitis B infections. The new recommendation also suggests that parents delay the first dose of the vaccine until at least two months after birth.

Friday’s decision comes after an 8-3 vote from a key CDC advisory committee, known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is charged with setting national guidelines around which people should be vaccinated against a wide range of preventable diseases and when those vaccines should be administered. The recommendations play a key role in determining which vaccines insurance companies are willing to cover and how accessible those immunizations are to the public.

The two-day meeting included several presentations from prominent anti-vaccine activists, including Aaron Siri, a vaccine injury lawyer who has previously represented U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and reportedly helped him vet health officials for President Donald Trump’s administration. At least two of them — Cynthia Nevison, a climate researcher who has ties to anti-vaccine groups, and Mark Blaxill, a former consultant and author — were recently hired by the CDC.

Retsef Levi, an ACIP member and professor of operations management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, called the updated recommendation a “very positive change in policy,” arguing that blanket vaccine recommendations force newborns to serve as “a safety net for adults’ mistakes.”

But Dr. Cody Meissner, another member of the committee who also serves as a professor of pediatrics and medicine at Dartmouth College, argued that the vaccines play a crucial role in protecting infants from the disease, and said there was no valid scientific evidence to support the changes implemented by the panel.

“Thoughtful inquiry is always commendable,” he told the committee. “But that inquiry should not be confused with baseless skepticism, which is what I think we’re encountering here.”

Sandra Fryhofer, a doctor and liaison for the American Medical Association, also criticized the move, arguing that implementing guidelines based on the mother’s hepatitis status will leave babies vulnerable to developing the disease from other sources, such as infected relatives. According to CDC data, roughly half of people with hepatitis B do not know they are infected.

“Are we going to test every patient that has access to or touches that baby?” she asked the committee Thursday. “I mean, that’s not something that’s really doable.”

The updated recommendation for the hepatitis B vaccine mirrors COVID-19 vaccine guidelines passed by the same panel in September, which place new emphasis on the risks of immunizations, though the CDC’s own data shows that the vaccines are safe and effective for most people. 

A second vote, which passed 6-4, encourages parents to discuss using serology testing, a type of blood test that measures antibodies to gauge how well a patient’s immune system has responded to a disease, before allowing their children to receive additional doses of the hepatitis B vaccine.

The changed recommendations will not prevent doctors from administering hepatitis B vaccines to newborns, but critics say they could create additional hurdles for families and healthcare providers.

“Adding excessive or ambiguous language around shared decision-making for routine vaccines muddies the waters, creates a false sense of scientific uncertainty and places unnecessary burden on clinicians and families,” said Dr. Natasha Bagdasarian, who was representing the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.

Children enrolled in Medicaid or the Vaccines for Children program, which provides free immunizations to children who are uninsured or underinsured, will continue to be eligible for hepatitis B vaccines at birth under the new recommendations, according to program liaisons.

Federal fallout

As with the new COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, the updated hepatitis B guidelines will not take effect until being officially signed off by the acting CDC Director, Jim O’Neill.

But amid shifting federal guidance on public health policies, a growing number of state and federal officials are developing their own policies rather than relying on the agency’s guidelines. In a Dec. 3 letter sent ahead of ACIP’s meeting, more than 30 members of Congress urged O’Neill to maintain the existing recommendations, regardless of what the advisory committee decided.

“There is no data to support delaying the first immunization to one-month, four years, or 12 years of age,” the letter states.

U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who heads the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, also called for O’Neill to forgo signing the updated recommendations.

“As a liver doctor who has treated patients with hepatitis B for decades, this change to the vaccine schedule is a mistake,” he wrote in a social media post after the vote. “The hepatitis B vaccine is safe and effective. The birth dose is a recommendation, NOT a mandate.”

Cassidy, a doctor, cast the deciding vote to confirm Kennedy as health secretary on the condition that Kennedy “maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without changes.” Kennedy later backtracked on that promise, firing all 17 previous members of the committee and replacing them with a slate of hand-picked appointees, many of whom are seen as vaccine skeptics.

In a Thursday social media post, Cassidy criticized the committee for its plans to hear testimony from Siri, the vaccine injury lawyer.

“The ACIP is totally discredited,” he added. “They are not protecting children.”

Neubauer said in an interview that Republicans have continued to “ignore” the core challenges facing Wisconsinites, which for the most part center on costs. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) told the Wisconsin Examiner in a year-end interview that Democrats have spent the past year preparing to lead and she is optimistic about the chances for flipping the Assembly. Neubauer reflected on the current session and previewed what’s ahead.

The effect of smaller margins and the remainder of session

This session has been different from previous ones, said Neubauer, who was first elected to the state Assembly in 2018 and has led Assembly Democrats since 2022. 

“Closer numbers in the state Assembly and state Senate have yielded some more bipartisan work,” Neubauer said. Republicans hold a 54 to 45 majority in the Assembly, and a 18 to 15 majority in the state Senate. 

She felt the difference this year  from her first seven years in the body, she said, when Democrats were “in a position where we really were on defense and having to spend a huge amount of time just trying to prevent the worst policy ideas from going through.”

That work across the aisle, she said, was evident in the state budget, when Senate Democrats had a seat at the negotiating table and were able to secure more money for public schools. She also sees a difference in some of the housing bills that recently passed the Legislature. Neubauer said that Assembly task forces focused on children’s social media use and elder care also allowed for discussion across the aisle and she is hopeful they will yield some bipartisan legislation.

Still, she said, the session hasn’t yielded everything she had hoped for. 

“We have not seen the kind of movement that I would have hoped, especially given that we’re  all up for election next year, and everyone’s going to have to go home and answer to their constituents for what was and was not accomplished.”

Neubauer said Republicans have continued to “ignore” the core challenges facing Wisconsinites, which for the most part center on costs. 

“That’s what we hear over and over from the people that we represent,” Neubauer said, noting several issues where Democratic lawmakers have introduced proposals or advocated for action. “There’s been no interest from our Republican colleagues on addressing the cost of prescription drugs and health care, especially in light of the [Affordable Care Act] premiums going up in a significant way. We have had a bill out for the entire session on Healthy School Meals. This would save the average family with two kids $1,800 a year. People would really appreciate that money right now, especially going into the holiday season, but we’ve had no interest from our Republican colleagues in addressing that issue…. and we do need to see more movement on housing and on child care.” 

Neubauer also noted that a bill to extend postpartum Medicaid remains stuck in the state Assembly due to opposition from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester). Democratic lawmakers tried to force a vote on the issue during their last scheduled floor session this year, but failed. 

Neubauer said she still hopes that measure could advance next year in the time remaining in the session. 

“We know that people across the state believe that new moms should have access to health care. It’s essential for mom and baby… You do have to ask why [Rep.] Pat Snyder and [Rep.] Jessie Rodriguez, authors on that bill, are not able to get it done when they are governing,” Neubauer said. “They’re in the majority, and they have been for a long time.”

Despite the gridlock on certain issues, Neubauer said Democratic lawmakers have been able to think differently this year. 

“We are able to think about what bills are we going to pass when we’re governing. How can we work across the aisle and use our numbers to get things done and put pressure on Republicans to make the bills better if they need our support,” Neubauer said. “I do think that we are preparing to govern in that way, and we’re really working over the next several months to get more input from our constituents on the things that are important to them to make sure that our agenda and our plan for the first hundred days is really tuned to the particular challenges that people are facing.” 

Democratic lawmakers have spent the session introducing and advocating for bills on a number of issues including K-12 education, higher education, local government and elections. Most haven’t advanced or received a public hearing, but they are laying the groundwork for the future. 

“The bills that we’ve rolled out this fall would be things we would absolutely do when we come into the majority,” Neubauer said. “We also know there are some pretty essential rights and freedoms that we would want, things like enshrining access to abortion in state law, in case there are further court cases that would put that at risk.” 

Neubauer said Democratic lawmakers will have additional bills coming out in the next few weeks and in 2026, addressing public safety, housing and health care. She declined to provide details on what those proposals might do.

Neubauer said her caucus will continue to push for additional education funding in the fall, including general aid. This year the state budget included additional funding for special education, but Republican lawmakers refused to provide an increase in general aid — something that public school leaders and advocates have said will strain their budgets and put pressure on property taxpayers. 

“We have failed to adequately fund our local public schools and what we see from Republicans is [a plan to] consolidate districts and close local schools. No one’s asking us for that,” Neubauer said. “They’re asking us to maintain that essential funding that will allow their kids to attend a grade school where they get a good reading and math education, they’re safe, and they’re prepared for their future career.”

Neubauer also commented on a handful of other issues that the Legislature is grappling with.

• Neubauer called WisconsinEye, the independent, nonprofit service that provides coverage of Wisconsin state government similar to C-Span, “essential.” WisconsinEye has announced it will have to cease operations Dec. 15 if it does not receive more funds. She said she thinks there is a bipartisan understanding of the service the network  provides and is hopeful lawmakers will be able to make changes to the law to allow WisconsinEye to access state funds that were set aside for it. She said Wisconsinites deserved to know what’s going on in the state Capitol. “They deserve to be able to watch testimony on a bill that’s really important to them or their family and to know how their representative is responding on a certain issue or voting on the floor of the Assembly,” she said. “We should have structured their funding a little differently in the state budget, but we have an opportunity to do so now to make sure that they can provide that service.” The state initially set aside $10 million for the nonprofit in the 2023-25 state budget that it could only access if it raised the same amount, but it failed to do so. The opportunity to access the funds for an endowment was extended in the 2025-27 state budget, but the organization has struggled to raise funds for both the endowment and its operational costs.
• Lawmakers have also been discussing, once again, legalizing medical marijuana, though Neubauer said she isn’t sure if Republicans, who are standing in the way, will budge this session. “The reality here is that THC products are available in Wisconsin because of the Farm Bill… so I do think that that’s shifted the conversation. People of Wisconsin have been very clear that they want access to both medical and recreational marijuana, and we should be regulating this market and taxing it, making sure that kids don’t have access to these products,” Neubauer said. “I do think it will be difficult for Republicans to go home and explain why they still have not done anything when we’re an island of prohibition here.” 
• On funds that have not been released to combat PFAS contamination in drinking water, Neubauer said she hopes the Legislature can finally get something done. “There have been some productive conversations on this issue. The central conflict really remains that Democrats believe that polluters should pay for the damage that they have done, and I’m not really sure my Republican colleagues would agree with that, and so that’s been a challenge for us to move through, but we just have to do something,” Neubauer said. “We have communities in Wisconsin that cannot drink the water coming out of their tap, and that’s unacceptable.” 

2026 elections and a potential majority

Neubauer, who confirmed she will be running for another term in the Assembly, said she is optimistic about Democrats’ chances of winning the Assembly majority next year. The 2026 elections will serve as Assembly Democrats’ second opportunity under new legislative maps adopted in 2024 to try to flip the chamber for the first time in 16 years. 

In 2024, Democrats won 10 additional seats. For Democrats to win control in 2026, they’ll need to hold all of their current seats and win five more. 

The seats that they’ll be competing for are very close, Neubauer said, including some that former Vice President Kamala Harris won in 2024, even as she lost the state as a whole.

“There are people who like the vision that we’re putting forward in these districts, so the path is there. We are recruiting great candidates who are very connected to their local community and who are ready to go out and speak directly to the voters of their district from now until election day,” Neubauer said. “That’s how we win. We win by talking about the failures of Republicans and pointing out that they have been in control here for coming up on 15 years, and they have really failed to provide the essential services that people deserve.” 

Neubauer said it helps that Democrats have fewer seats that they need to flip in 2026, so they’ll be able to better focus on tough districts. 

Neubauer said Democrats have candidates from a diverse array of backgrounds including teachers, coaches, small business owners, farmers, public safety employees and union members, who she said are representative of the state.  

“We know that people want to see folks in office that remind them of themselves and of their neighbors and who understand the challenges that they’re going through. We’ve got folks running who get what it’s like to be looking at the budget and worried about how they’re going to make it to the next month or how they’re going to afford those Christmas gifts or special meals for the holidays,” she said. 

She said to look out for more candidate announcements early next year.

Neubauer also said the election results from across the country bode well for Democrats in Wisconsin. She said the results in  New Jersey and Virginia were a “really strong overperformance for Democrats.” She said it’s a sign that people are unhappy with Republican leadership and the direction of the country.

“[President] Donald Trump said that he was going to focus on the economy and making life a little easier for folks, and he has engaged in reckless trade wars, and taking other steps that have made it harder for people to get by — not easier,” Neubauer said. She also said it is “shocking” that Trump would “completely fail” to recognize how cutting SNAP funding would hurt people, and said his comments about running for a third term are “unsettling” and it is “incumbent on all of us who believe in democracy and who believe in fair elections” to push back.

“I think you’re seeing the effects of that on people across the country. Not only the federal Republicans, but their state level Republicans are just not following through on the promises that they made so I think people are looking for something different and that gives us an opportunity here.”

Wisconsinites will also make a choice next year in a high-profile open race for governor, and Neubauer said she’ll do everything she can to elect a Democratic governor. 

“I am looking for someone who understands the necessity of winning in Wisconsin next year and is focused on communicating with the people of this state a vision for how life would be better with Democrats running the state Capitol,” Neubauer said. “It’s really important that we put out a vision, and that we connect directly with the people of Wisconsin and push through the frustration that folks have with politics right now by being really clear about what we’ll do and then winning and then getting those things done.”

Neubauer said she is happy with the field of Democrats running for governor, especially given how many have legislative experience, but won’t be making an endorsement. She noted that Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan and U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore all spent time serving in the Wisconsin Legislature. 

Two current lawmakers, state Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), and state Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison), are running along with former lawmakers Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, Milwaukee Co. Executive David Crowley and former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes.

“We’re excited that so many folks understand what it’s like to be a legislator and who will work well, I think, with our caucus in a governing trifecta,” Neubauer said. 

Former Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation CEO Missy Hughes, another Democratic gubernatorial hopeful, has no legislative experience.

In the event a Republican wins, Neubauer said Democrats in the Legislature will “work with them to the best of our ability to deliver.” 

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who is considered the frontrunner in the primary race, and Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann, are the current Republican hopefuls.

“We show up every day remembering that our constituents sent us here to get things done and that has to be our first priority, so we will work with anybody who wants to work with us and that would include a Republican governor if that’s the situation that we’re in,” Neubauer said. “People are struggling, and it is our responsibility to respond to that and to do what we can to help.”

Older men play cards in a park in New York City's Chinatown in 2024. Medicare, the public health insurance for older Americans, is piloting a new prior authorization program powered by artificial intelligence that some physicians fear will result in more denials and delays in medical care for patients. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

A Medicare pilot program will allow private companies to use artificial intelligence to review older Americans’ requests for certain medical care — and will reward the companies when they deny it.

In January, the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will launch the Wasteful and Inappropriate Services Reduction (WISeR) Model to test AI-powered prior authorizations on certain health services for Medicare patients in six states: Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas and Washington. The program is scheduled to last through 2031.

The program effectively inserts one of private insurance’s most unpopular features — prior authorization — into traditional Medicare, the federal health insurance program for people 65 and older and those with certain disabilities. Prior authorization is the process by which patients and doctors must ask health insurers to approve medical procedures or drugs before proceeding.

Adults over 65 generally have two options for health insurance: traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. Both types of Medicare are funded with public dollars, but Medicare Advantage plans are contracted through private insurance companies. Medicare Advantage plans tend to cost less out of pocket, but patients enrolled in them often must seek prior authorization for care.

AI-powered prior authorization in Medicare Advantage and private insurance has attracted intense criticism, legislative action by state and federal lawmakers, federal investigations and class-action lawsuits. It’s been linked to bad health outcomes. Dozens of states have passed legislation in recent years to regulate the practice.

In June, the Trump administration even extracted a pledge from major health insurers to streamline and reduce prior authorization.

“Americans shouldn’t have to negotiate with their insurer to get the care they need,” U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a June statement announcing the pledge. “Pitting patients and their doctors against massive companies was not good for anyone.”

Four days after the pledge was announced, the administration rolled out the new WISeR program, scheduled to take effect in January. It will require prior authorizations only for certain services and prescriptions that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has identified as “particularly vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse, or inappropriate use.” Those services include, among other things, knee arthroscopy for knee osteoarthritis, skin and tissue substitutes, certain nerve stimulation services and incontinence control devices.

The companies get paid based on how much money they save Medicare by denying approvals for “unnecessary or non-covered services,” CMS said in a statement unveiling the program.

The new program has alarmed many physicians and advocates in the affected states.

“In concept, it makes a lot of sense; you don’t want to pay for care that patients don’t need,” said Jeb Shepard, policy director for the Washington State Medical Association.

“But in practice, [prior authorization] has been hugely problematic because it essentially acts as a barrier. There are a lot of denials and lengthy appeals processes that pull physicians away from providing care to patients. They have to fight with insurance carriers to get their patients the care they believe is appropriate.”

CMS responded to Stateline’s questions by providing additional information about the program, but offered few details on what the agency would do to prevent delays or denials of care. It has said that final decisions on coverage denials will be made by “licensed clinicians, not machines.” In a bid to hold the companies accountable, CMS also incentivizes them for making determinations in a reasonable amount of time, and for making the right determinations according to Medicare rules, without needing appeals.

In the statement announcing the program, Abe Sutton, director of the CMS Innovation Center, said the “low-value services” targeted by WISeR “offer patients minimal benefit and, in some cases, can result in physical harm and psychological stress. They also increase patient costs while inflating health care spending.”

A vulnerable group

Dr. Bindu Nayak is an endocrinologist in Wenatchee, Washington, a city near the center of the state that bills itself as the “Apple Capital of the World.” She mainly treats patients with diabetes and estimates 30-40% of her patients have Medicare.

“Medicare recipients are a vulnerable group,” Nayak told Stateline. “The WISeR program puts more barriers up for them accessing care. And they may have to now deal with prior authorization when they never had to deal with it before.”

Nayak and other physicians worry the same problems with prior authorizations that they’ve seen with their Medicare Advantage patients will plague traditional Medicare patients. Nayak has employees on staff whose only role is to handle prior authorizations.

More than a quarter of physicians nationwide say prior authorization issues led to a serious problem for a patient in their care, including hospitalization or permanent damage, according to the most recent report from the American Medical Association.

And some patients are unfairly denied treatment. Private insurers have denied care for people with Medicare Advantage plans even though their prior authorization requests met Medicare’s requirements, according to an investigation from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published in 2022. Investigators found 13% of prior authorization denials were for requests that should have been granted.

But supporters of the new model say something must be done to reduce costs. Medicare is the largest single purchaser of health care in the nation, with spending expected to double in the next decade, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal agency. Medicare spent as much as $5.8 billion in 2022 on services with little or no benefit to patients.

Congress pushes back

In November, congressional representatives from Ohio, Washington and other states introduced a bill to repeal the WISeR model. It’s currently in committee.

“The [Trump] administration has publicly admitted prior authorization is harmful, yet it is moving forward with this misguided effort that would make seniors navigate more red tape to get the care they’re entitled to,” U.S. Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Washington Democrat and a co-sponsor of the bill, said in a November statement.

Physician and hospital groups in many of the affected states have backed the bill, which would halt the program at least temporarily. Shepard, whose medical association supports the bill, said that would give CMS time to get more stakeholder input and give physicians more time to prepare for extra administrative requirements.

“Conventional wisdom would dictate a program of this magnitude that has elicited so much concern from so many corners would at least be delayed while we work through some things,” Shepard said, “but there’s no indication that they’re going to back off this.”

Adding more prior authorization requirements for a new subset of Medicare patients will tack on extra administrative burdens for physicians, especially those in orthopedics, urology and neurology, fields that have a higher share of services that fall under the new rules.

That increased administrative burden “will probably lead to a lot longer wait times for patients,” Nayak said. “It will be important for patients to realize that they may see more barriers in the form of denials, but they should continue to advocate for themselves.”

Dr. Jayesh Shah, president of the Texas Medical Association and a San Antonio-based wound care physician, said WISeR is a well-intentioned program, but that prior authorization hurts patients and physicians.

“Prior authorization delays care and sometimes also denies care to patients who need it, and it increases the hassle factor for all physicians,” he told Stateline.

Shah added that, on the flip side, he’s heard from a few physicians who welcome prior authorization. They’d rather get preapproval for a procedure than perform it and later have Medicare deny reimbursement if the procedure didn’t meet requirements, he said.

Prior authorization has been a bipartisan concern in Congress and statehouses around the country.

Last year, 10 states — Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming — passed laws regulating prior authorization, according to the American Medical Association. Legislatures in at least 18 states have addressed prior authorization so far this year, an analysis from health policy publication Health Affairs Forefront found. Bipartisan groups of lawmakers in more than a dozen states have passed laws regulating the use of AI in health care.

But the new effort in the U.S. House to repeal the WISeR program is sponsored by Democrats. Supporters worry it’s unlikely to gain much traction in the Republican-controlled Congress.

Shepard said his organization has talked with state and congressional representatives, met with the regional CMS office twice, and sent a letter to CMS Director Dr. Mehmet Oz.

“We’ve looked at all the levers and we’ve pulled most of them,” Shepard said. “We’re running out of levers to pull.”

Venture capital jumps in

CMS announced in November it has selected six private tech companies to pilot the AI programs.

Some of them are backed by venture capital funds that count larger insurance companies among their key investors.

For example, Oklahoma’s pilot will be run by Humata Health Inc., which is backed by investors that include Blue Venture Fund, the venture capital arm of Blue Cross Blue Shield companies, and Optum Ventures, a venture capital firm connected to UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of UnitedHealthcare. Innovaccer Inc., chosen to run Ohio’s program, counts health care giant Kaiser Permanente as an investor.

Nayak said she knows little about Virtix Health, the Arizona-based private company contracted by the feds to run Washington state’s pilot program.

“Virtix Health would have a financial incentive to deny claims,” Nayak said. “It begs the question, would there be any safeguards to prevent profit-driven denials of care?”

That financial incentive is a concern in Texas too.

“If, financially, the vendor is going to benefit by the denial, it could be a problem for our patients,” Shah said. He said that Oz, in a speech at a recent meeting of the American Medical Association, assured physicians that their satisfaction and turnaround times would be metrics that Medicare would factor into the tech companies’ payments.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct a reference to Medicare Advantage and to CMS Director Dr. Mehmet Oz’s speech to the American Medical Association.

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

Christine Neumann Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, speaks at a press conference on the Wisconsin Supreme Court case challenging the legality of Wisconsin law enforcement agencies' cooperation agreements with ICE | Photo via Voces de la Frontera Facebook video

In Wisconsin we have been watching in horror as President Donald Trump’s lawless immigration crackdown terrorizes communities in our neighboring states of Minnesota and Illinois. 

Here at home, so far, things are mostly quiet. Farmers in western Wisconsin report no ICE raids on the dairies where 60% to 90% of workers are immigrants without legal status. There have been a few high-profile arrests and deportations in Milwaukee, Madison and Manitowoc, but nothing like the scenes of chaos in the streets of Chicago and Minneapolis, where masked federal agents are aiming guns at civilians, smashing out car windows and dragging parents from their children, hustling them off to detention centers to be fast-tracked out of the country without due process.

One of the most disturbing things about this campaign of terror is that it seems to be directed by the president’s whim. In a Thanksgiving post full of invective and schoolyard insults directed at Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, Trump denounced the Somali community he claimed was “completely taking over the great State of Minnesota.” One week later, CBS News confirmed that ICE operations were underway targeting Somali immigrants in the Twin Cities.

Since we can’t count on the federal government to stay inside the bounds of reason or the law, it is critical that local and state leaders stand up to the racist, unconstitutional and unAmerican assault on immigrants. 

It was good news when, on Wednesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted a case filed by the state chapter of the ACLU on behalf of the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera, contending that Wisconsin law enforcement agencies do not have the authority to make arrests or keep people in jail on detainers based solely on ICE’s administrative warrants.

Tim Muth, the ACLU of Wisconsin’s senior staff attorney, said hundreds of people throughout the state are being illegally held for days.

“It is extremely important for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to determine whether any law enforcement in Wisconsin has the legal authority to put or keep people in jail when they have not committed a crime and when no judge has issued an arrest warrant,” Wisconsin immigration attorney Grant Sovern wrote in an email to the Examiner. “Anyone in Wisconsin would want dangerous people to be kept from the public. But ICE is currently making no determinations about dangerousness or the likelihood to show up for a hearing if a summons is issued. A summons is a perfectly rational and legal way to address a civil legal question like someone’s immigration status. Jailing people before any independent adjudicator determines someone to be dangerous is against the Constitution and not the Wisconsin way.”

At a press conference Wednesday, Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces, told the story of a landscaper in Green Bay who was picked up for driving without a license (immigrants without legal status are barred by a 2007 state law from obtaining driver’s licenses). He was sent to county jail and then handed over to ICE. “He was a grandfather, very active in his church,” Neumann-Ortiz said, describing him as “someone who does not represent any kind of threat to society at all” and who, on the contrary, is a pillar of his community and beloved by his family. 

Voces helped fight the deportation in a case that is still working its way through the courts. “At least he’s out and together with his family,” Neumann-Ortiz said. “But that’s an example of how people can be impacted by this.” 

As it scrambles to meet arbitrary deportation quotas, ICE sends detainers even for people who have never been convicted of a crime and have only minor charges pending in Wisconsin courts. 

Voces has been fighting at the local level since the first Trump administration for local law enforcement to refuse to collaborate with ICE unless there is a judicial warrant for someone, meaning that person is being sought in connection with a serious crime. As a result of Voces’ efforts, that is now the standard in Milwaukee County. The state Supreme Court case is an effort to establish the same standard statewide.

Neumann-Ortiz said she’s grateful the Supreme Court justices recognized the urgency of the issue in agreeing to take the case on an expedited basis, “given the current level of abuse that we’re seeing happen, and which will only escalate.”

And, she added, “We certainly very much anticipate Milwaukee being one of the cities that will be targeted for militarized occupation with these aggressive sweeps.”

Whether or not Wisconsin communities can protect people from the kind of violence we’ve been seeing in other states depends on the courageous actions of state and local officials, advocates and informed community members. It begins with recognizing that the Trump administration’s actions are wrong and then standing up.

At the press conference, a reporter asked about ICE’s assertion that the agency doesn’t have room for everyone in its detention facilities and therefore needs space in county jails. Muth responded: “Detain fewer people.”

Neumann-Ortiz added some clarifying context. “They are profiling people, they are just grabbing people without any probable cause. So it’s a very racist program that is using violence against people and is trying to hijack, through bribery and through threats, local law enforcement to be part of this mass deportation machinery,” she said. 

“We’re seeing, at the local level, community come together,” she added, “to reject these efforts to undermine local law enforcement — which is supposed to play a public safety role — into just this arm of deportation driven by xenophobia and racism. And which is making a lot of money for the for-profit prison industry.”

This year, communities across the state have pushed back on 287g partnership agreements between local law enforcement and ICE that turn sheriff’s departments into an arm of the federal immigration agency. Palmyra, Ozaukee and Kenosha counties rejected ICE’s offers of money to transform their sheriffs into agents of federal immigration enforcement.

The Kenosha sheriff’s office made its decision not to participate after the ACLU and Voces had already named it in the Supreme Court lawsuit, along with Walworth, Brown, Sauk and Marathon counties. Palmyra also reversed a decision to accept a large payment from ICE to participate, responding to public outrage.

“Resistance is happening, it’s successful, it’s building community,” Neumann-Ortiz said. “But we do need state protections to uphold our rights.”

A Biden-era protection for reproductive and gender affirming health care information was upended by a federal judge in Texas in June. Despite several lawsuits, key privacy rules for medical records remain, but some experts say they aren’t sufficient. (Photo by Dave Whitney / Getty Images)

The four lawsuits at the center of a Republican-led effort to ensure law enforcement can access reproductive health records are now mostly resolved, after attorneys for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton agreed last week to dismiss the last remaining suit challenging the legality of a foundational health privacy rule.

Paxton filed the lawsuit in September 2024 arguing that Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration illegally created a rule under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act barring certain reproductive health care information from being disclosed if a procedure such as abortion was obtained in a state where it is legal.

The federal HIPAA law is meant to protect patient information generally, especially when that information travels between providers. It contains exceptions for information that can be disclosed to investigators, who can subpoena records from other states. 

Ashley Kurzweil, senior policy analyst for reproductive health and rights at the National Partnership for Women & Families, said the dual threat that Paxton’s lawsuit presented was alarming on a much wider scale than just reproductive health care, so it is a relief that the case is dismissed. Overturning key privacy protections from 2000 that formed the basis of the Biden-era rule could have thrown the entire health care system into chaos, she said.

“We are thrilled that the 2000 privacy rule is still in effect. It is hugely important that it is still in place,” Kurzweil said. “However, (it) provides insufficient safeguards for reproductive health care information when it comes to the broader landscape of increased criminalization risk that people are facing.”

The 2024 rule specifically relating to reproductive and gender-affirming health care information was nullified in June by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. His ruling came in a Texas-based case filed by a clinician in a small town who said the rule created a conflict with her responsibility to report child abuse, because she considers abortion and gender-affirming health care to be child abuse.

Without those 2024 protections, doctors can choose whether to report patients to law enforcement, Kurzeil said, and some might also be discouraged from offering reproductive health care altogether to minimize legal risks.  

States Newsroom reported more than 400 people were charged with pregnancy-related crimes in the two years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, according to data from the nonprofit Pregnancy Justice. 

One of those people was Brittany Watts, an Ohio woman who went to the hospital with miscarriage complications and waited for hours without receiving help. After miscarrying at home and returning to the hospital, staff called the police, accusing her of abuse of a corpse. A grand jury declined to indict her, and Watts is now suing the hospital. 

In nine of the 400 cases, pregnant people were accused of researching or attempting to obtain an abortion.

Advocacy group dropped effort to appeal Texas ruling

The case before Kacsmaryk is the only one of the four that resulted in a ruling. Although it was filed in the last few months of the Biden administration, the bulk of the case was litigated under Republican President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice.

Repealing the rule was a directive in Project 2025, the conservative blueprint published by the Heritage Foundation. Several prominent anti-abortion organizations were part of the panel that drafted Project 2025, and many of the people involved in writing the 900-page document now work for the Trump administration.

Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal organization, represented Doctors for America and the cities of Columbus, Ohio, and Madison, Wisconsin, in an attempt to intervene in the case because they did not expect the government to defend the rule. If they were allowed to intervene, they could appeal Kacsmaryk’s opinion striking down the rule regardless of the Trump administration’s decision.

Their attempts were denied by Kacsmaryk, and while the organization did initially appeal that decision, the attorneys dropped the effort in September, saying in a court filing that “the resources of the parties and the courts would be best conserved by dismissing this appeal.”

In a statement to States Newsroom, a spokesperson for Democracy Forward said they will continue to pursue every tool available to defend reproductive rights from political interference and anti-abortion extremists.

The other two cases are in Missouri and Tennessee, where Republican attorneys general also challenged the 2024 reproductive health care-specific rule. The Missouri case was dismissed in September, because Kacsmaryk’s decision had a nationwide effect, and the Tennessee attorney general asked the court to dismiss their case for the same reason. The judge in that case has not yet granted the motion.

Shield laws help, but federal backstop would address more situations

Texas and Louisiana have recently launched investigations into out-of-state doctors who, through telehealth, prescribed and mailed abortion medication to patients in their states where abortion is outlawed.

Texas officials have repeatedly investigated and attempted to prosecute people for either leaving the state to seek abortion care or for prescribing abortion medication from a different state. At the end of October, a New York judge dismissed a civil case brought by Paxton seeking $100,000 in damages from a provider the AG said prescribed abortion pills to a woman in the Dallas area, according to The Texas Tribune. Officials in Louisiana attempted to extradite the same New York doctor on criminal charges related to an abortion medication prescription for a pregnant minor. That case was also rejected.

Those attempts were some of the first that tested shield laws implemented by 18 states, including New York. Four others have executive orders from Democratic governors saying they won’t comply with extradition requests for investigations into reproductive health care.

Texas has also passed a law allowing people to seek at least $100,000 in damages if someone they impregnated or someone they’re related to received abortion pills by mail from another state. That law took effect Thursday, Dec. 4.

Kurzweil said those shield laws are a vital help to patients seeking care, but the addition of a federal protective rule would be ideal.

“The two in tandem would be much more fulsome and would address gaps that come up,” she said.

Members of the National Guard stationed outside Union Station in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 18, 2025. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court Thursday paused a lower court’s order to remove the National Guard from the streets of Washington, D.C., eight days after two members were attacked in broad daylight in the district.

The three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted the Trump administration’s request that the Nov. 20 decision finding the Guard presence illegal to be stayed “pending further order of this court.” 

“The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the motion for stay pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion,” wrote Judges Patricia Millett, Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao.

Millett was appointed by former President Barack Obama, and Katsas and Rao were appointed during President Donald Trump’s first term.

Roughly 2,000 National Guard troops in D.C. were originally expected to remain in the district through February, according to the lower court’s order.

Appeal considered after shooting

The stay comes just over a week after two West Virginia National Guard members were shot on Nov. 26 just blocks from the White House. U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died from her injuries the following day, Thanksgiving. U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, underwent surgery for critical injuries and remains hospitalized.

The suspected shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national who was living in Washington state, pleaded not guilty from his hospital bed during a virtual hearing in D.C. Superior Court Tuesday. Lakanwal is charged with first-degree murder while armed,  possession of a firearm, and assault with the intent to kill. 

The Trump administration filed the emergency motion to stay the lower judge’s order on the day of the shooting. The administration requested the circuit court issue a decision by Dec. 4.

Judge Jia Cobb, for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, found the administration’s deployment of more than 2,000 guard troops in the city illegal but stayed her Nov. 20 decision until Dec. 11 to give the administration time to appeal and remove the guard members from the district’s streets.

Guard armed

Trump initially mobilized 800 National Guard troops to the nation’s capital in August after claiming a “crime emergency” in the district, despite a documented three-decade low in crime.

Many were instructed they would be carrying service weapons, The Wall Street Journal reported on Aug. 17. The White House effort was accompanied by a heightened U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement presence in the district.

Trump also federalized the district’s police force for 30 days as part of a district-wide crackdown. While the federalization of the police force expired, Trump has kept the National Guard in the district.

Since then, Republican governors from Louisiana, Ohio, South Carolina and West Virginia, among others, have agreed to send their own Guard members to the district. 

The mobilization had been tied up in court for months.

Farm workers harvesting yellow bell peppers near Gilroy, California. (Nnehring/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration Thursday announced new restrictions for immigrants, reducing the work authorization periods from five years to 18 months, the latest crackdown on legal immigration.

The new policy follows the shooting of two West Virginia National Guard members by an Afghan national granted asylum earlier this year. 

The shift will not only affect hundreds of thousands of immigrants, but the shortened period for work authorization could create massive backlogs at the agency responsible for processing legal immigration requests, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

“Reducing the maximum validity period for employment authorization will ensure that those seeking to work in the United States do not threaten public safety or promote harmful anti-American ideologies,” USCIS Director Joseph Edlow said in a statement.

“After the attack on National Guard service members in our nation’s capital by an alien who was admitted into this country by the previous administration, it’s even more clear that USCIS must conduct frequent vetting of aliens,” he continued. 

Immigrants affected by the new changes include refugees; those granted asylum; those with a withholding of removal; those with pending applications for asylum or withholding of removal; those adjusting their status, for example by gaining a green card; and those who fall under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997.

That act applies to certain Nicaraguans, Cubans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, nationals of former Soviet bloc countries and their dependents who in the 1990s had applied for asylum and were systematically denied.

Additionally, USCIS fees for applying for permits and other paperwork increased as a result of the massive tax and spending passage that Republicans passed over the summer and President Donald Trump signed into law. For initial employment authorization, fees are now $550 and $275 to renew. 

Following the shooting, U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died. A second guard member, U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, remains critically wounded but hospitalized in stable condition. 

In response, the Trump administration has ramped up its crackdown on legal immigration and highlighted the need for its mass deportation campaign. The suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, pleaded not guilty to several charges in court on Tuesday. 

This week, all immigration applications from 19 countries listed on Trump’s “high-risk” countries or travel ban from earlier this year, were paused — a move that freezes processing for green card holders and citizenship applications.

Supporters gather for a rally to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in 2012 in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images) 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, a longtime champion of creating legal status for immigrants brought into the country as children who will retire next year, re-introduced his trademark immigration bill for the last time Thursday. 

Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, first introduced the measure now known as the Dream Act in 2001 with Utah Republican Orrin Hatch and has reintroduced it every Congress since. Congress has not passed the bill. 

Durbin, 81, spoke about his legacy on immigration at a Thursday press conference.

“We are a nation of immigrants. I am proud to be the son of an immigrant,” the No. 2 Senate Democrat said. “This is a proud son of an immigrant who’s doing everything he can to help the next generation of immigrants be part of America’s future. The fight has just begun.”

While Congress is again unlikely to approve the measure this year, younger Senate Democrats Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Alex Padilla of California said Thursday they would carry on the effort.

“The dream is still alive,” Padilla said. “We are committed as ever to get it across the finish line.”

Cortez Masto agreed. 

“Some day, with the hard work of everyone, we (will) get it across the finish line,” she said. 

Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski co-sponsored the latest version of the legislation.

Temporary fix now 13 years old

The Dream Act would create a path to citizenship for immigrant children who came into the country with their parents without legal authorization.

The bill has nicknamed more than 530,000 immigrants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program as Dreamers. The Obama administration created the program in 2012 as a temporary measure to allow recipients to obtain work permits and drivers licenses while Congress created a pathway to citizenship.

DACA’s legality is tied up in the courts, throwing its recipients into limbo. 

For now, existing DACA recipients can continue to renew, but the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in January upheld deportation protections for recipients, but found the work authorization portion unlawful. The appeals court limited its ruling to Texas, which spearheaded the suit, meaning that DACA remains in full effect in every state and U.S. territory except Texas.

Many immigration policy experts have called DACA outdated because there are now thousands of undocumented youth who are not eligible for the program because they were not even born by 2007, the year a recipient must have started residence in the United States. 

A federal judge in 2021 blocked new applicants from being accepted.

Trump crackdown adds urgency

Many DACA recipients have been caught up in President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign. 

Dozens of recipients have been detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, despite their legal status, according to immigrant advocacy groups tracking the issue. 

“This moment in the history of our nation is a terrible, challenging moment for so many people, not just the Dreamers, but immigrants in general,” Durbin said. 

“I’ve been both angry and heartbroken to watch masked federal agents parading in their combat uniforms with automatic weapons in the city of Chicago,” he continued. “I’ve seen them wreak havoc in these communities and sow fear among people who are afraid to even go outside, to go to church or to go shopping.”

The executive director of the immigrant advocacy group United We Dream, Greisa Martinez Rosas, said that while DACA has allowed some immigrant youth to obtain work authorization and deportation protections, more needs to be done, especially under a second Trump administration.

“We are currently facing unprecedented attacks that pose the greatest threat to… the future of the DACA program, and in doing so, the future of this country and those millions of people who would make our country stronger every single day,” she said.

Immigration reform elusive

Durbin said the Dream Act would be a “key step toward true, positive, bipartisan change” in immigration policy.  

​​The last time Congress came close to bipartisan immigration reform was in 2013. 

That year, the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators, including Durbin, crafted a bill to create a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented people who had resided in the country for years. 

The Senate passed the measure, but then-House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, never brought the bill to the floor for a vote.

U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., points to text messages by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during an annual worldwide threats assessment hearing at the Longworth House Office Building on March 26, 2025 in Washington, DC. The hearing held by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence addressed top aides inadvertently including Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief for The Atlantic magazine, on a high level Trump administration Signal group chat discussing plans to bomb Houthi targets in Yemen. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth violated official policy when he used the publicly available Signal app to message about military plans from his personal cell phone, including imminent bombings in Yemen, according to a report released Thursday by the Pentagon’s own watchdog. 

The Defense Department Inspector General’s 84-page report concluded Hegseth sent information about the “strike times of manned U.S. aircraft over hostile territory over an unapproved, unsecure network approximately 2 to 4 hours before the execution of those strikes.” 

“Although the Secretary wrote in his July 25 statement to the DoD OIG that ‘there were no details that would endanger our troops or the mission,’ if this information had fallen into the hands of U.S. adversaries, Houthi forces might have been able to counter U.S. forces or reposition personnel and assets to avoid planned U.S. strikes,” the report states. “Even though these events did not ultimately occur, the Secretary’s actions created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in failed U.S. mission objectives and potential harm to U.S. pilots.”

Members of Congress from both political parties requested the Defense Department Inspector General look into Hegseth’s use of Signal after a journalist at The Atlantic was inadvertently added to a group chat of national security officials planning the bombing in Yemen. Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg later published a series of stories detailing the messages. 

Acting Defense Department Inspector General Steven A. Stebbins released a memo in April announcing he had opened an investigation into the matter. 

GOP wants more Pentagon tech, Dems want Hegseth gone

Members of Congress’ reaction to the report was mixed, with Republicans suggesting more technology is needed for the Pentagon, while Democrats called for Hegseth to resign. 

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., issued a statement saying the report shows Hegseth “acted within his authority to communicate the information in question to other cabinet level officials.” 

“It is also clear to me that our senior leaders need more tools available to them to communicate classified information in real time and a variety of environments,” Wicker added. “I think we have some work to do in providing those tools to our national security leaders.”

Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., said in a statement the report confirms “that Secretary Hegseth violated military regulations and continues to show reckless disregard for the safety of American servicemembers.”

“For months, Secretary Hegseth has attempted to mislead Congress and the American people, claiming repeatedly that no classified information was involved,” Reed said. “The Inspector General has now definitively cast doubt on those false assurances.”

Reed added that Hegseth should “explain himself to Congress, the public, and the servicemembers he leads. The men and women of our armed forces deserve leadership they can trust with their lives.”

Hegseth refuses to give cell phone to investigators

The Inspector General report said Hegseth declined to sit for an interview with the Defense Department’s oversight agency, that he refused to hand over his personal cell phone to investigators and that he didn’t retain some of the messages in accordance with federal recordkeeping requirements. 

Officials working for Hegseth shared copies of the Signal chat with the inspector general, but those were incomplete since the app’s auto-delete feature was on at the time. Signal users can adjust that for different lengths of time or turn it off completely.

Hegseth was in the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF, in his home the morning and early afternoon of March 15 to monitor “the operation against the Houthis,” according to the report. 

Two aides who were with Hegseth at the time told investigators he used “secure, classified” systems to communicate with United States Central Command officials “during the planning and execution of the strikes against Houthi targets that day and reviewed information related to the strikes.” 

“In the SCIF, the Secretary had access to multiple means of secure communication that allowed him to provide the necessary operational details and updates to non-DoD government officials on the Signal group chat,” the report states. 

The group chat about the Yemen bombing that accidentally included a journalist wasn’t the only one Hegseth used to communicate about official Pentagon business from his personal phone. 

Eight officials within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of the Chief Information Officer told investigators that Hegseth created “multiple Signal group chats in which the Secretary and others allegedly discussed official DoD business and nonpublic information.” 

“One of the officials we spoke with stated that the Secretary posted the same sensitive operational information concerning the Houthi attack plans on the ‘Defense Team Huddle’ group chat,” the report states, later adding Hegseth declined to provide any information about that chat. 

The Inspector General opted not to make any recommendations about the use of Signal in the report, since “records management issues arising from the use of Signal and other commercially available messaging applications are a DoD-wide issue.”

A previous inspector general report also called on the department to “improve training for DoD senior officials on compliance with records retention laws and policies.”

Alabama’s Rogers says mission not compromised

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., wrote in a statement that it is “important to remember that this was a successful operation that took out a dangerous target with no harm to U.S. troops. It’s clear that the discussion on Signal didn’t compromise the mission.”

“During the past few administrations, the use of Signal for communication between government officials has grown, so I appreciate the comprehensive work by the IG to develop recommendations on how to improve and secure communications,” Rogers said. “I encourage the Administration to follow these recommendations, and I look forward to discussions with the Pentagon on how to implement them.”

House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith, D-Wash., called the report “a damning review of an incompetent secretary of defense who is profoundly incapable of the job and clearly has no respect for or comprehension of what is required to safeguard our service members.”

“It confirms staggering violations of policy – namely that unsecured platforms were used by the secretary to boast about sensitive operational details that could have jeopardized both the mission and, more importantly, the lives of American service members tasked with carrying out Operation Rough Rider,” Smith said.

‘A fireable offense for anyone else in the Department of Defense’

Senate Defense Appropriations subcommittee ranking member Chris Coons, D-Del., said in a statement the report “concluded that Secretary Hegseth violated DOD procedure and put service members’ lives at risk with his reckless mishandling of sensitive information.” 

“In March, I led a group of senators in pressing the Trump administration to investigate this blatant misconduct. Any service member who acted with such disregard for our national security would be dismissed, at the very least,” Coons said. “Our nation’s highest ranking defense official should not be held to a lower standard than the men and women he oversees. For the good of our nation, I once again call on Secretary Hegseth to resign.”

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ranking member Jim Himes, D-Conn., said in a statement the report “confirms what I feared when this Signal thread became public: We are fortunate that the mission was not compromised and that servicemembers were not put at needless risk thanks to Secretary Hegseth’s reckless treatment of classified information.”

“Pete Hegseth’s behavior and lack of judgment would be a fireable offense for anyone else in the Department of Defense,” Himes said. “What’s more, his refusal to sit for an interview with the Inspector General or submit his device for examination is yet another example of his failure to take responsibility for his actions.”